One question:
when I upload a song for kvr in souncloud, this load on personal profile or on kvr profile? in other world, the time limit for free in soundcloud is notched by upload for kvr?
One-Synth-Challenge 60: Any One Synth - Submissions, Voting & Results
RELATED
PRODUCTS ACE (Any Cable Everywhere) Alchemy Aspect Blarg Charlatan Chromaphone 1 Cobalt Corona Discovery Pro Diva drzewo Swierk DUNE FM8 HYDi Komplexer Kx-Synth-X16 LuSH-101 Massiva Modular V3 Monark Moppeltron Nabla OB-Xd - Virtual Analog Synthesizer OP-X Pro Poly-Ana Polysix Razor Saurus 4 Spectral Synth1 SynthMaster 2 Sytrus T-Force Alpha Plus Triangle I Tunefish 4 Ultra Analog VA-2 Z3TA+ Zebra ZynAddSubFX
PRODUCTS ACE (Any Cable Everywhere) Alchemy Aspect Blarg Charlatan Chromaphone 1 Cobalt Corona Discovery Pro Diva drzewo Swierk DUNE FM8 HYDi Komplexer Kx-Synth-X16 LuSH-101 Massiva Modular V3 Monark Moppeltron Nabla OB-Xd - Virtual Analog Synthesizer OP-X Pro Poly-Ana Polysix Razor Saurus 4 Spectral Synth1 SynthMaster 2 Sytrus T-Force Alpha Plus Triangle I Tunefish 4 Ultra Analog VA-2 Z3TA+ Zebra ZynAddSubFX
-
- KVRist
- 268 posts since 7 Mar, 2004 from Cremona, Italy
-
- KVRist
- 268 posts since 7 Mar, 2004 from Cremona, Italy
And why not insert a limited number of songs in a contest? only first 30 uploaded tracks will compete in a round?
-
- KVRian
- 687 posts since 21 Aug, 2010 from Cagliari - (Sardinia)
I'd rather prefer limiting the voting to your top N tracks. Limiting the number of songs could lead to a run against the time, which is not in the spirit of OSC, imho.ballacr75 wrote:And why not insert a limited number of songs in a contest? only first 30 uploaded tracks will compete in a round?
-
- KVRian
- 687 posts since 21 Aug, 2010 from Cagliari - (Sardinia)
Your own personal soundcloud profile. By uploading a track for kvr osc, you share it to the osc group - it's just a link, a pointer - but you are using your personal soundcloud space.ballacr75 wrote:One question:
when I upload a song for kvr in souncloud, this load on personal profile or on kvr profile? in other world, the time limit for free in soundcloud is notched by upload for kvr?
-
- KVRist
- 110 posts since 8 Jun, 2012
why not let vote 5 or so changing people all entries. This 5 people jury could vote for the tracks with some criteria. So it would be garantied that the whole songs are listened and not only the favourite artists.
-
- KVRist
- 118 posts since 15 Jun, 2007 from Poland
Voted. 
Ugh, It took long long time, mainly because of the need to stack all 68 entries. I voted yes for stacking instead of multiple votes to equal total number of votes to be given by each voter, though multiple option was much easier.
Anyway to make stacking easier, firstly I divided all entries into 8 levels or groups (like 8-top, down to 1-level), and then stacked tracks one by one in each level. So idea if we could segregate tracks into several groups just inside voting form seems very suitable for me, would make things simpler. Stacking surely would be much quicker having 30-40 tracks as in most OSCs. So maybe to use different, simplified scoring system in case of let's say 40 or more entries?
I still cannot make up my mind about voting by categories option (creativity, mixing etc)... On one hand it seems to make voting process more structural, more logical, more mathematical(?). But on the other hand it may happen for example for one or more tracks that I'd like to score them very high because they excel in just one category. Or can track's artistic value be measured by a sum of points in several categories? I'd say not in every case at least. Sometimes I'm thrilled by a piece of music and cannot say precisely why, because it is just art...
Good luck to everyone, enjoy your voting!
Ugh, It took long long time, mainly because of the need to stack all 68 entries. I voted yes for stacking instead of multiple votes to equal total number of votes to be given by each voter, though multiple option was much easier.
Anyway to make stacking easier, firstly I divided all entries into 8 levels or groups (like 8-top, down to 1-level), and then stacked tracks one by one in each level. So idea if we could segregate tracks into several groups just inside voting form seems very suitable for me, would make things simpler. Stacking surely would be much quicker having 30-40 tracks as in most OSCs. So maybe to use different, simplified scoring system in case of let's say 40 or more entries?
I still cannot make up my mind about voting by categories option (creativity, mixing etc)... On one hand it seems to make voting process more structural, more logical, more mathematical(?). But on the other hand it may happen for example for one or more tracks that I'd like to score them very high because they excel in just one category. Or can track's artistic value be measured by a sum of points in several categories? I'd say not in every case at least. Sometimes I'm thrilled by a piece of music and cannot say precisely why, because it is just art...
Good luck to everyone, enjoy your voting!
-
- KVRist
- 308 posts since 9 Jul, 2008 from SOUTH AFRICA
Voted!! It was very tough because of the outstanding tracks!! Kudos to all of you guys, your tracks very very kooool and could hear the effort that went into your work and i thoroughly enjoyed it! I learnt alot in this osc...and at least this was my second OSC in KVR and have met some nice musos here!
Regards
TB4C
Regards
TB4C
The notes you don't play creates the silent gaps for you to hear the notes you do play 
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3922 posts since 15 Dec, 2009
Bottom line about voting is that it takes a lot of time just to listen to all the tracks. Compared to that, the actual system used for voting is not that big TBPF.
But yes, it's obviously faster to give points at the same time of listening, rather than waiting to hear all and THEN comparing them all in order to find out who is for example top 5, top 10 or stacking them all as is now. Even the vote-by-category thing is faster than any comparative system IMO as it's just listen, click, done.
I suggest listening to the submissions as they come in during the month so that when voting start, you know them all and don't have to sit down and listen to all in one go. Ideally it should be possible to score the tracks as they come in but that will probably be difficult or impossible to implement.
But yes, it's obviously faster to give points at the same time of listening, rather than waiting to hear all and THEN comparing them all in order to find out who is for example top 5, top 10 or stacking them all as is now. Even the vote-by-category thing is faster than any comparative system IMO as it's just listen, click, done.
I suggest listening to the submissions as they come in during the month so that when voting start, you know them all and don't have to sit down and listen to all in one go. Ideally it should be possible to score the tracks as they come in but that will probably be difficult or impossible to implement.
-
- KVRist
- 320 posts since 16 Mar, 2005 from Nürnberg, Germany
Voted!
Now, that I did my votes, I will begin to give comments on the tracks...
Btw... I´m really thankfull for all the comments I got so far - Thanks, everyone!!
Aaaaaand good luck to everyone...!
Cheers, Bjulin
Now, that I did my votes, I will begin to give comments on the tracks...
Btw... I´m really thankfull for all the comments I got so far - Thanks, everyone!!
Aaaaaand good luck to everyone...!
Cheers, Bjulin
-
- KVRist
- 290 posts since 31 Jul, 2013 from Brazil
Maybe it's a dumb suggestion, but I thought about a hybrid system, mixing the previous and present ones: voting would still be by stacking, and everybody would vote on everybody, but the left column could be divided in 5 vertical areas, to correspond to the "1" to "5" ratings from the previous system. This way, people could separate the big group in smaller ones and, later on, stack the tracks inside the groups according to their preferences: this would automatically work as a tiebraker as well, in case of equal scores.
Explaining it better: let's suppose you have 10 tracks on group 5 (5 points to each). People would still order them according to their own preference: so, in this case, within each group, the first track would actually receive "5", but the other 9 would be automatically subtracted by some gradual value, so they would always receive less than "5" and more than "4". And this logic could be used on all other groups.
In this case, with 10 tracks on group 5:
-First track, 5 points
-The difference between 5 and 4, of course, is 1 point: so, 1 would be divided by 10, resulting in 0.10
-The other 9 tracks would receive gradually smaller ratings, based on this constant: 4.9, 4.8, 4.7, 4.6, 4.5, 4.4, 4.3, 4.2 and 4.1
-The same process would happen on the other groups
This would work no matter how many tracks you have on each group: if you have 14 tracks with 5, the first would get 5 and the other 13 would receive 0.07 less than the previous one (1 divided by 14 = 0.07), and so on, and so on. Limiting it to 2 decimal places, it would work really fine, even with huge amount of entries.
This would help people to vote, because they would only have to initially worry about the 5 groups, and later on, simply organize them in order of preference within each group. Using this constant, there would still be a real numeric difference among all contestants, but not so overwhelming big like one receiving 68 points and the other one, simply 1.
And if you allow me a further suggestion, maybe "1" should be reserved only for the voter himself/herself, and notes from "2" to "5" accordingly divided among other contestants. This would avoid some unfair common practices among a few users that seemingly try to sabotage the voting by giving super low scores to lots of other users.
Explaining it better: let's suppose you have 10 tracks on group 5 (5 points to each). People would still order them according to their own preference: so, in this case, within each group, the first track would actually receive "5", but the other 9 would be automatically subtracted by some gradual value, so they would always receive less than "5" and more than "4". And this logic could be used on all other groups.
In this case, with 10 tracks on group 5:
-First track, 5 points
-The difference between 5 and 4, of course, is 1 point: so, 1 would be divided by 10, resulting in 0.10
-The other 9 tracks would receive gradually smaller ratings, based on this constant: 4.9, 4.8, 4.7, 4.6, 4.5, 4.4, 4.3, 4.2 and 4.1
-The same process would happen on the other groups
This would work no matter how many tracks you have on each group: if you have 14 tracks with 5, the first would get 5 and the other 13 would receive 0.07 less than the previous one (1 divided by 14 = 0.07), and so on, and so on. Limiting it to 2 decimal places, it would work really fine, even with huge amount of entries.
This would help people to vote, because they would only have to initially worry about the 5 groups, and later on, simply organize them in order of preference within each group. Using this constant, there would still be a real numeric difference among all contestants, but not so overwhelming big like one receiving 68 points and the other one, simply 1.
And if you allow me a further suggestion, maybe "1" should be reserved only for the voter himself/herself, and notes from "2" to "5" accordingly divided among other contestants. This would avoid some unfair common practices among a few users that seemingly try to sabotage the voting by giving super low scores to lots of other users.
-
loft_electronics loft_electronics https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=311439 - KVRist
- 39 posts since 29 Aug, 2013 from UK
Voted!
-
- KVRAF
- 2289 posts since 18 Apr, 2001 from The Netherlands
I really think we are over thinking the voting issue; the previous system looked pretty solid to me (and simple). I don't see how someone could actually 'skew' the votes; that might have been the case with 15 or so participants, but with the current amounts someone could flip a first and second place by aggressive voting, but with those numbers it is impossible to get someone who is ranking top three (for example) down to say 'below top ten'.
Also, what's wrong if I vote one point for a track I simply don't like while everyone votes 4 or 5 for the same track. It's my vote and therefore my perception of a track. And again, my minimal vote won't make a dent if everyone else thinks it's the best track
I liked the 5-point system. I simply made a list on paper with all the track-names, scored them while listening and afterwards simply filled in the form.
Also, what's wrong if I vote one point for a track I simply don't like while everyone votes 4 or 5 for the same track. It's my vote and therefore my perception of a track. And again, my minimal vote won't make a dent if everyone else thinks it's the best track
I liked the 5-point system. I simply made a list on paper with all the track-names, scored them while listening and afterwards simply filled in the form.
CrimsonWarlock aka TechnoGremlin, using Reaper and a fine selection of freeware plugins.
Ragnarök VST-synthesizer co-creator with Full Bucket
Ragnarök VST-synthesizer co-creator with Full Bucket
-
- KVRist
- 396 posts since 7 Dec, 2006 from Richmond, VA, USA
Voted. Have to say that was a little tedious. Cool page technically -- I'm a developer, but kinda a pain. .
That said. Holy Hell there were some good tracks....
That said. Holy Hell there were some good tracks....
-
- KVRian
- 1276 posts since 9 Jan, 2013 from morf
crimsonwarlock wrote:I really think we are over thinking the voting issue; the previous system looked pretty solid to me (and simple). I don't see how someone could actually 'skew' the votes; that might have been the case with 15 or so participants, but with the current amounts someone could flip a first and second place by aggressive voting, but with those numbers it is impossible to get someone who is ranking top three (for example) down to say 'below top ten'.
Also, what's wrong if I vote one point for a track I simply don't like while everyone votes 4 or 5 for the same track. It's my vote and therefore my perception of a track. And again, my minimal vote won't make a dent if everyone else thinks it's the best track
I liked the 5-point system. I simply made a list on paper with all the track-names, scored them while listening and afterwards simply filled in the form.
Yes, this very true.
I have voted, took me 3 different browsers,then would not accept the password I wanted.
All I can say is, with a tablet as my only source for the internet, I can see this being a struggle.
Oh well, no one really cares, so I will probably just disappear
Good luck to all
Man is least himself when he talks in the first person. Give him a mask, and he'll show you his true face
